This story was reported and written by our media partner the Virginia Mercury.
Virginia Attorney Jay Jones joined a coalition of 22 Democratic attorneys general Wednesday urging a federal judge in Florida to closely examine a controversial settlement tied to President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, arguing the agreement raises serious constitutional and ethics concerns.
The filing, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, asks the court to scrutinize what the coalition describes as a potentially “collusive” settlement between Trump and the U.S. Department of Justice in the case known as Trump v. IRS.
The attorneys general argue the agreement would grant broad protections to Trump, his family and business interests while creating a proposed $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization” fund that the president’s critics say could steer taxpayer money toward Trump allies and others claiming they were unfairly targeted by the government.
The multi-state effort is led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
“This proposed ‘settlement’ is yet another appalling example of Donald Trump’s belief that he is above the law, and that his presidency allows him to evade accountability for his illegal actions,” Jones said in a statement.
“The people of the commonwealth are fed up with his schemes, and they are fed up with elected leaders who believe they are above the people they serve. This office will use every resource available to speak up for and act on behalf of Virginians, who deserve better than a president who only serves himself.”
The filing comes as legal scholars, former federal judges and watchdog groups nationwide continue questioning both the settlement itself and the unusual circumstances surrounding the case.
Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump and the Trump Organization filed the lawsuit in January against the U.S. Treasury Department and IRS over the disclosure of Trump tax return information by a government contractor. The lawsuit sought billions in damages tied to the release of tax records later published by several news organizations.
The suit drew immediate attention because Trump, as president, oversees the federal agencies he sued.
U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams had previously questioned whether the parties were genuinely adversarial and ordered a briefing on whether the court even had jurisdiction over the dispute. According to Wednesday’s filing, Trump voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit and entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Justice Department shortly before those issues were set to be argued.
The coalition said that timing raises additional concerns.
According to the attorneys general, the agreement appears to be “an attempted end-run around constitutional limits on Executive Branch authority.” The brief argues the settlement bears little connection to the legal merits of the original lawsuit and may exceed the Justice Department’s authority.
The filing also argues the arrangement risks undermining public confidence in the courts by allowing a president to negotiate favorable legal protections with agencies under his own control.
The dispute has sparked growing political and legal backlash since details of the settlement became public last month, with Democrats and some Republicans questioning whether taxpayer money could eventually benefit Jan. 6 defendants or political allies of the president.
Former federal judges also urged the court to reopen the case, accusing the parties of potentially misleading the judiciary.
The controversy escalated further after reports that the settlement included provisions shielding Trump, members of his family and related businesses from certain future tax investigations or audits.
The Justice Department initially defended the proposal, describing the fund as a mechanism to address alleged government “weaponization.”
“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement last month.
But the Trump administration has since faced growing political and legal pressure over the arrangement and has begun backing away from the proposed fund.
Legal fights connected to the settlement, however, are continuing in federal court. A federal judge in Virginia last month blocked the proposed fund from moving forward.
The Florida court is now considering whether to reopen Trump v. IRS under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows courts to revisit judgments in cases involving alleged fraud, misconduct or deception.
In this week’s filing, the coalition argued that state attorneys general have a particular interest in preserving public confidence in the legal system and guarding against abuses of executive authority.
“The self-dealing and corrupt nature of this settlement agreement is antithetical to the responsibilities of attorneys general and the rule of law,” the coalition wrote.
The Florida court has not yet ruled on whether the case will be reopened.